Judge calls Apple motion to reconsider Motorola ruling 'troubling'

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner shot down Apple's motion to reconsider a ruling of a Motorola patent case, writing that the document's two main arguments are founded on "flagrant misreadings" of the March 29 order.

Judge Posner's order of denial, issued on Friday, comes after Apple won a number of key patent claims regarding touchscreen heuristics in its case against Motorola, reports The Verge

Although the court's claim construction ruling upheld certain claims of Apple's '949 patent, the Cupertino, Calif., company wasn't satisfied with the order's scope and requested Judge Posner to reconsider his findings.

Specifically, Apple's lawyers claimed that "the Court incorrectly concluded that 'there is no basis in either the claim language or the diagrams and descriptions for a finger swipe as a structure corresponding to the next item heuristic." The request went on to say "the Court erroneously found that a horizontal finger swipe cannot be both a next item heuristic (claim 1) and a horizontal screen scroll heuristic (claim 10)."

As for Apple's first claim, Judge Posner stated that the quote was taken from another portion of the order and had no bearing on the iPhone maker's argument. He writes that "Apple perceives disagreement where there is none. There can be no substantive response to this argument of Apples, for it argues not against my order but against Apples mirage of that order."

Apple's second claim was similarly dismissed as irrelevant because it misinterpreted quotes from the March 29 order.

The denial order concedes that the final passage of Apple's motion containing photo manipulation contentions may hold some merit, though Judge Posner can't take the claim into consideration because it was not advanced during the patent construction briefing.

Apple presumably spent a nontrivial amount of time drafting its order, and now I have done the same in responding to it. Yet it seems that Apple brought about this expenditure of scarce resources without first making a careful reading of the page or so of my order against which this motion is launched. Such inconsiderate sloppiness is unprofessional and unacceptable.

Overall, Apple's attempt to contest parts of the judge's original order was seen as slipshod. It is unclear why the company's attorneys would seek to oppose the previous order, or how they so blatantly misinterpreted the court's documented findings.

Overall, Apple's attempt to contest parts of the judge's original order was seen as slipshod. It is unclear why the company's attorneys would seek to oppose the previous order, or how they so blatantly misinterpreted the court's documented findings.

If Steve were around, he'd say, "You've tarnished Apple's reputation. You should all hate each other for having let each other down..."

Apple presumably spent a nontrivial amount of time drafting its order, and now I have done the same in responding to it. Yet it seems that Apple brought about this expenditure of scarce resources without first making a careful reading of the page or so of my order against which this motion is launched. Such inconsiderate sloppiness is unprofessional and unacceptable.

Inconsiderate sloppiness. Unprofessional. Unacceptable.

Why does Apple think that a judge will put up with these sort of tactics?

the RDF worked for Steve in the context where he was the undisputed boss. Likely it works for the suits when they start waving a checkbook around.

But in a court of law, it is, as Hizzoner said, unacceptable.

Do they take the man for a fool? Do they think he will just throw up his hands and concede to them? Are they nuts?

Overall, Apple's attempt to contest parts of the judge's original order was seen as slipshod. It is unclear why the company's attorneys would seek to oppose the previous order, or how they so blatantly misinterpreted the court's documented findings.[/URL]

It is possible that Apple's attorneys simply messed up.

OTOH, it is also possible that they did this for strategic reasons. There are several plausible ones, but one of the biggies would be to defuse Motorola's argument on appeal that the judge was biased in favor of Apple and did not adequately consider the relevant matters.

Frankly, I think it's far more likely that Apple had a reason (whatever it was).

Why does Apple think that a judge will put up with these sort of tactics?

the RDF worked for Steve in the context where he was the undisputed boss. Likely it works for the suits when they start waving a checkbook around.

But in a court of law, it is, as Hizzoner said, unacceptable.

Do they take the man for a fool? Do they think he will just throw up his hands and concede to them? Are they nuts?

Are you?

You obviously don't know what happened other than a third hand version of it. You certainly were not involved in Apple's legal strategy discussions. There may well have been a good reason for what Apple did.

Or maybe they didn't consider the issue important since they won most of the important arguments and did put an inexperienced attorney on it to get him some experience.

One way or the other, given the choice between accepting that Apple's legal team knows what they're doing or accepting that you know better than they do, you lose.

OTOH, it is also possible that they did this for strategic reasons. There are several plausible ones, but one of the biggies would be to defuse Motorola's argument on appeal that the judge was biased in favor of Apple and did not adequately consider the relevant matters.

Frankly, I think it's far more likely that Apple had a reason (whatever it was).

You really think they were more likely to intentionally be irritating Judge Posner and wasting his time rather than just plain screwing up? They certainly made an impression on him and not a good one according the Judge's answer.

Isn't it possible that the Judge actually misunderstood, he says: "Apple sees disagreement where there is none."
Uh, wouldn't Apple best be able to judge if they were in disagreement? Who is Posner to say that they don't in fact disagree?

God forbid he not understand the technological implications of what Apple is putting forth.